[Wikipedia-l] Re: MT and pro-Catholic bias

Tue Oct 21 19:24:01 UTC 2003

On Tuesday 21 October 2003 03:18 pm, Gareth Owen wrote:
> erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller) writes:
> > Cutting down fluff and POV language which is inevitable when using direct
> > quotes -- sure. Removing facts -- no way.
>
> Really?  If I had verifiable facts (from a published Diary, say) that Tony
> Benn had toast and marmalade for breakfast on the 3rd of March, 1967, and
> added it to the article, that would be OK and -- how wiki is this --
> *irremovable*.
>
> What rubbish.

I think Erik's intent was quite clearly to say that that no factual 
information pertinent to the subject should be removed, with which I agree. 
The example you cite is rubbish, not Erik's argument. 

>
> > There is no size limit on Wikipedia.
> > To remove useful information ...
>
> At the third reiteration, the information ceases to be useful, or
> interesting. How many times do you wish to cite sources stating that the
> Missionaries Of Charity took in a lot of money and were pretty shifty about
> where it went?

If it is true, as you claim, that something is repeated three times, then 
surely the removal of two of those instances does not remove factual and 
pertinent information?

>
> This point is made about 5 times in the article, each time with a lengthy
> direct quotation from a different secondary source.
>
> The section "Improper and undisclosed use of funds" could be precis'd into
> about 6 sentences and no useful information would be lost.  Similarly, both
> lengthy quotations in "Secret Baptisms" could be summarised in about 40
> words, including attributions.
>

Then why don't you do it? If you think that something is wrong with the 
article you can change it. (Remember, this is a wiki)

> As a bonus, neither section would then read like it was written by an 3rd
> grader with attention-deficit disorder.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
-- 
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from 
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc